Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners

The Total Cost of Ownership: Exploring the Digital Divide of Deaf-Blind Learners S. Jordan Wright EDU 821 Gallaudet University May 5, 2013

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners Introduction The landscape for communication in the past decade as most of us have come to understand is changing at a breakneck pace, thrusting modern-day America into the spin cycle of the information revolution. Where filmmakers and writers of fiction once perceived worlds of virtual reality, we now walk among the veil between dual realities. Yet, the veil becomes thinner as seconds pass while a new world order sprouts around us a knowledge-based social order in which homes, offices, schools, and communities become interwoven in a web of intelligent communication (Halal, 1992). It seems almost logical that given the anonymity cyberspace affords, the world would become smaller and more anonymous, affording users the luxury of shedding society-given labels such as gender, race, and class (Friedman, 2005). Yet, later in this paper I will examine how the rapidly amassing digital divide in the United States effectively turns digital access to the information revolution into a class-driven system. I will demonstrate through four counter-narratives how class is a deeply divisive factor in providing access to computer use and Internet and thereby, socioeconomic success. I contend that intersectionality of class and disability are inherent predictors of access and a strong predictor indicative of the quality of life for Deaf-Blind learners. Furthermore, this raises the question of total cost of ownership: is the luxury of technology ownership the new survival of the fittest among Deaf- Blind learners?

Examining the Digital Divide In order to survive and succeed in today and tomorrows socioeconomic society, it is necessary for citizens to be fluent in computer use and communication technologies.

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners Nothing is more true than for Children, in particular, on whose future most societies rest must be able to access, understand, and use the computer and internet in order to succeed (Cleary, Pierce, & Trauth, 2006). Despite the rapid progress that has been made in the provision of Internet and commercial availability of computers, a digital divide exists where class is concerned. The digital divide has traditionally been based upon the concept of computer and Internet access (C&I) between the haves and have-nots. In 2007, Valadez and Duran published a study, which reframes and updates the definition of the digital divide to more accurately reflect the inequality that exists between low and high resource schools. This definition is based on four elements of access to C&I: 1) The physical access, 2) C&I use in the classroom, 3) availability of support for C&I, and 4) social consequences of the use of Information Technology (Martin, 2003; DiMaggio et al., 2001; March 2001; and Warschauer as cited by (Valadez & Duran, 2007).

Four Counter-Narratives Divided by the Digital Divide I cannot begin to discuss the complexities of statistics, percentages, technologies, associated costs, and the overarching impact of the digital divide upon Deaf-Blind learners without first offering counter-narratives to provide an intimate view of such an impact within a low-incidence disability population (Chen & Haney, 1995). Deaf-Blindness is an all-encompassing term that describes various combinations of dual-sensory loss affecting both hearing and vision status simultaneously (Chen, 2004). Despite the low-incidence factor of Deaf-Blindness, there exists a sizeable population of individuals identified as such. Even then, the numbers reported show great discrepancies depending on how DeafBlindness is defined. In the southeast region where I worked with the Deaf-Blind

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners population, the count came in at 27,000 citizens living with a combination of vision and hearing loss, thereby termed Deaf-Blind. Other reports contradict these findings: As far as it has been possible to count them, there are over 10,000 children (ages birth to 22 years) in the United States who have been classified as deaf-blind (NCDB, 2008). It has been estimated that the adult deaf- blind population numbers 35-40,000 (Watson, 1993). For the purposes of this paper, I begin by offering four counter-narratives based upon my professional experiences working with Deaf-Blind learners who use American Sign Language (ASL) and Lengua de Seas Mexicana or LSM as the preferred modality of communication. James One of the things that strikes me most about James is his constant thirst for knowledge and his tendency to start our conversations in Tactile American Sign Language (TASL) with random bits of Jeopardian trivia. For the past six months, we have worked feverishly towards the goal of a seamless transition to a prestigious denominational private college in the southeast to which he was accepted. I still recall the very day he was accepted. During a routine lesson in the navigation of JAWS (Job Access with Speech) and ZoomText both software programs that provide magnification and refreshable braille readouts (Figures 1 and 2), his email notification popped up in the screen. As is the case with automated responses, both programs require advanced skills to determine whether an email is genuine or spam. His hands sought mine as he asked: Is this spam or email? I took a cursory look at the screen and saw the subject line: Acceptance Notification With considerable effort to tuck away my emotions in some crevice of my mind, determined not to allow my hands betray me I offered a nonchalant response: I believe you should read

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners that email. James went through the appropriate protocol of uploading the message, Zooming it into his customized settings and used the braille display as synchronized support to read the email. As I sat across from him, I saw a half-certain, half-uncertain smile creep across his face. Waving his hands for mine, he asked: Does this mean I really got in? In a profession filled with a world of Nos it was a scrumptious rarity to answer him with a firm, indubitable Y-E-S! Summer gave way into fall, as James family and I set up camp at a hotel near the University. The hotel would serve as what James mother affectionately called the command center. Our mission was to make the transition to the university as smooth as possible. Both mother and father took one week off of work, were tirelessly involved in nearly all aspects of the transition: renting out a suite in a four star hotel, hiring movers, and attending meetings alongside me with various university faculty. Equally committed to this endeavor were James professors and advisors. As James would be the first Deaf-Blind student admitted to the university, prior to this roundtable meeting James and I worked diligently on preparing a mini crash-course PowerPoint on Deaf-Blindness and access. I am a staunch supporter of providing Deaf-Blind learners with the tools necessary to articulate exactly what they need for access in order to make school or employment situations effective. The lists of technologies necessary for James to effectively contribute in class are lengthy and expensive. To say nothing about communication needs in terms of accommodations, the provision of a solo interpreter or two as is often the case with Deaf learners is simply not enough for a Deaf-Blind tactile user. James would need at least four interpreters to rotate due to the physical strain of TASL for untold durations of college class time.

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners Unaccustomed to presenting before an audience, James did remarkably well for his first time. I stood nearby to offer visual feedback of the group via TASL: facial expressions, body language, and motion within the room but more importantly, served as a grounded location in unfamiliar territory in which James could implicitly touch, or merely check-in with an imperceptible bump of his elbow. Reassurance that solitude in an unseen world is a cardinal need for Deaf-Blind individuals. After James had finished presenting, I am not sure who was more nervous about the response James, his parents, or myself. After what seemed like an inordinate amount of time, the Dean simply started clapping. Others joined in a sort of overwhelmed-fascinated response. The Dean made it clear that the university would follow my recommendations so long as they were outlined in writing, and affixed with the appropriate State seal and signatures. No questions asked. The rest of the week both in the hotel and around campus was filled with team camaraderie between James, his parents, and myself. We visited classroom after classroom, took photographs, drew diagrams, and ordered pizza as I sat up late into the night drawing diagrams to connect various Bluetooth technologies to smart board, whiteboard, iDevices, and worked with the university IT personnel to ensure consistent connectivity for Bluetooth enabled devices so long as James was on campus. Through it all, James grew more and more excited to join the ranks of three thousand incoming freshmen only a few days away. Often, at night I was taken aback by how normal this all seemed to James and his family. He is not just a Deaf-Blind teenager, but rather a teenager going to college and doing things just a little differently. The first day of the semester rolled around. It was a gorgeous southern Indian summer of a day. After meeting James interpreting team on campus, he was like a kid in a candy store. For me, it was not goodbye merely see you next

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners week. As I stepped back to allow mom and dad a moment alone with their son, I was again struck by the normalcy of it all. For them, they were able to carry out every parents dream a tearful goodbye as they send a child off to the upper echelons of prestigious higher education. Billy The hour and a half drive from my office to work with Billy is always beautiful, especially in the spring when the mountain valleys are vigorously populated with a kaleidoscope of colors. Billy and his mother reside in a non-descript trailer park adjacent to the highway, a stones throw from the towns sole rusty gas station. Despite a mildly cheerful working-class Caucasian community, the symptoms of poverty and depression are apparent: the smell of alcohol and marijuana mixes with morning fog, 40s and .99 cent miniature liquor bottles litter the outside of certain trailers and new tire marks appear in crisscross fashion across lawns. Billys mother throws the trailer door wide open, and I am overwhelmed by the outpouring smell of cigar and cigarette smoke as she hollers to my interpreter: Good morning!! Billy has been waiting for you! Billy stumbles out of the trailer, feels his way across the length of the trailer towards the driveway. I wait to see if our mobility lessons have paid off can he find me at the drivers side of the car without injuring himself? Billy falls once, adding a small splotch of crimson to old scabs on his knee, but quickly recovers with teenage immunity. Finally, he reaches the car door, and puts out his hands making contact with my forearm. His fingers nimbly find mine, as he searches them and immediately discovers my familiar ring. Jordan! he signs, and begins to giggle.

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners As we settle in, I open my laptop to begin our lessons in typing and reading simple braille. Billy does not own a computer. His mother cannot afford Internet access, and does not have access to a mobile device, nor does Billy. As is usually the case, Billys mother is rushing off to begin a twelve hour shift at the local fast food joint, promising sometime soon they will have internet access, clearly embarrassed by her surroundings. As usual, I study her face, taking in the bluish-pink grooves under her eyes, the graying of her once-blonde hair, her defeated posture and I say: I will come as often as I can before you know it, school will start soon, and hell have access to computers every day of the week. She gives me a lopsided smile and whispers: Thank You before dashing off to toil into the wee hours of the morning. Sometimes, I worry for Billys safety. Although technically almost an adult, it is illegal in this state for a minor to be left home alone for such long periods of time. No access to a computer, no braille displays for communication, no way to instant message, text message, email, or have any kind of contact with the outside world. Billy is not quite independent enough to make simple meals like a sandwich or a microwaved bowl of soup. He subsists on chips, pretzels, and pre-packaged snacks that come from the gas station. Billy has no family within driving distance. The stark reality of the situation is: this 18X90 rectangle of metal is his Prison. Braille and word document lessons are slow going, as the summer heat is overwhelming. Billy is not interested in foreign raised dots on paper, nor is he interested in working on random computer keys. So starved is Billy for human attention, communication, language and news of the outside world I cannot get him to understand that keys and foreign dots and newfangled machines can provide for him when I am not

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners around. As it nears 3:00pm, I realize I need the extra hour of bargaining to begin the drive back to the office. Leaving Billy is always hard. First, there is the begging. But if I type with you for an hour, will you stay and play games with me? the bargaining. And then, the leaving always the hardest part. Sometimes, Billy will try to physically block us from leaving. But today, he stands silently at the doorway staring off into a space he cannot see, to see me off down the dusty road. On the drive back, I vent out loud to my colleague. The pressure of looming graduation dates from school, post-transition plans is he even ready at all? I lambaste Vocational Rehabilitation for denying his case, I complain about the fallacy of state and federal assistance promising Internet affordability for low-income families. I restate for the thousandth time my, my exasperation at such programs that offer assistance for a year, maybe two then stop altogether. Internet access is expensive. I calculate it would take Billys mother roughly two twelve hour shift to afford an Internet bundle. My colleague listens in silence, mm-hmm-ing, yes-ing and absolutely-ing at the appropriate times. As the sun sets behind us while we drive down from the mountains, I see the jeweled expanse of the city stretched out beneath us. I cant help but feel guilty for taking home my thoughts of Billy when I should turn them off at 5:00. I cant help but wonder how living in a city surrounded by so much prosperity, we allow people to drown in solitude of necessity. Fernando I most probably almost lost my life, and the lives of two interpreters when we first met Fernandos family. Two days ago, Fernandos sister Maria had contacted me, interested in securing services for her Deaf-Blind brother. In hushed tones over the phone, she told me in no uncertain words that her family was illegally residing in the United States. Before

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners divulging further information, Maria demanded to know whether my position with the State required me to report their status. I knew from experience that our policies did not bar us from serving illegal immigrants, nor did they require us to report the legal status of individuals, so long as they resided in the state. After gaining Marias trust through subsequent phone calls and text messages, they agreed to a home visit. Maria is very fluent in English, but informed me that her brother and father speak only Spanish. After promising utmost security, she agreed to allow one ASL/LSM interpreter, and one Spanishspeaking interpreter to attend the initial meeting only. As luck would have it, our GPS took us on a winding, remote trail through the mountains of the Southeast replete with sheer cliff-drops that are not for the faint of heart. Of course, our reliable GPS would take us through an unmarked, unpaved muddy road to which our trusty state vehicle became gloriously stuck. A terse discussion broke out among the three of us as to the most appropriate way to free the vehicle without having to step outside in the mud. As I looked in my rearview mirror, I saw four Latino men with shotguns, approaching our vehicle. The exchange was hostile and quite loud, to say the least. Fortunately, the commotion drew a young woman with important hair and impeccable caramel skin who I later learned was Mariarunning towards the vehicle. In rapid-fire Spanish, this slender young woman ordered the four men to stand down. She defiantly explained our presence in their protected, hidden community of illegal immigrants. The mens faces quickly turned to that of respectful welcome, and the family meeting began.

10

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners To most people, watching Maria and Fernando communicate might be viewed as something of an aberration. Standing under the only source of ultra-bright fluorescent lighting under a ceiling fan in a Spartan trailer living room, Fernando and Maria appeared to be nearly kissing. Fernando has so little residual vision and no knowledge of tactile signed language. The only way he can communicate is by attempting to read Marias lips under painfully bright light as they chatter about in Spanish, using LSM when necessary. To me, observing this behavior is a beautiful act of gregariousness as it pertains to the human need and desire to communicate and belong. Fernando regards me with upbeat fervor, his hands a blur of LSM and vocalized Spanish. I sense that communicating to him through an interpreter is simply not the right dynamic in this moment. I fold my hands under his and sign slowly in TASL. Fernando shrinks back in a mixture of surprise and reticence, but does not necessarily let go of my hands completely. As hindsight is always 20/20, I later would learn from Maria that touching hand-on-hand (intimately, as she put it) between men in their culture is not necessarily acceptable, especially from a white man. Yet, she could see the joy in his face and emotions when introduced to Tactile ASL, and in an instant became our biggest cheerleader and advocate to the close-knit hidden community for this strange touchinglanguage. The problem is this: the local community college offers classes in English, mathematics, and basic IT work all subjects that interested Fernando very much so. However, the applications process for the community college in this state is entirely online. Maria has rudimentary computer skills and a basic mastery of e-mail by way of her management job at a local fast food establishment. In this close-knit hidden community of

11

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners approximately 65 souls, computer access was available in only two trailers, shared by one family with the necessary expertise and financial means to afford it. Fernando desperately wanted a life outside of the confines of his family trailer. He wanted to join the workforce and become a contributor, developing the same work ethics as his younger sister and father. Fernando expressed time and again, his desire to become a contributor instead of a handicapped individual needing care. The thing I remember most about Fernando is his smile, no matter what the conditions of his everyday sameness as I left for the day. As time went on, I became accepted by this community, and even began to counsel other members in matters of technology access, advising on the best types of laptops to buy, the best deals for internet bundles, and the best smartphones for the money. Money was always tight within this community, but that is exactly what it was a community. People took care of each other out of a sense of duty, out of a sense of love, as I would later learn. We begin immediately with braille. I knew right away that Fernando must master braille in order to read refreshable braille, JAWS, Focus40Blue, ( Figures 6 & 3) in order to succeed in community college. Fernando had perfect fluency in Spanish, which made his transition to computer use smoother than most Deaf-Blind learners who typically do not have fluency in English. This equipment on which we practiced belonged to the State. As I pondered ways to obtain this technology for Fernando, the numbers began to scare me: $5,495 for Focus40 Blue refreshable braille (Figure 3), another grand for the software, another grand at least for an adequate computer and I forced my thoughts to stop there. At the same time, I knew Vocational Rehabilitation would not provide services to anyone who is not a U.S. citizen without the possession of a work permit, and most grants for

12

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners education-related technology for Deaf-Blind individuals requires IRS tax documents to demonstrate a financial need. Self-depreciation sets in quickly in this line of work. The feeling of helplessness can be pervasive when so many silly obstacles prevent helping those who truly need help. As we were finishing lessons in refreshable braille, I was about to bid the family and neighbor farewell when Maria hurried into the living room with what seemed like most of the neighbors. She extended her hand to Fernando and then to mine, pulling us under the halo of that familiar light of communication. Fernando sought my hands and asked me what was going on, to which I indicated I had no idea. Maria presented us with a long rectangular box wrapped in crimson-bright foil paper. Immediately, I began to mentally scold myself for forgetting someones birthday or riding roughshod over a cultural holiday I might have missed. Fernando prompted me to open it to which I responded No, I will hold it. You will open it. Gingerly, he spliced the paper lengthwise down the box, taking care not to destroy the paper. My mouth for all intents and purposes, dropped figuratively to the floor. Fernando sought my hands quickly and asked, What is it? F-O-C-U-S-4-0-B-L-U-E I fingerspelled rapidly into his hand. His smile, my failure to hold back tears, and the humble peering eyes from the close-knit, hidden huddle surrounding us, I will never forget for the rest of my days.

13

Money Required: Breaking Down Costs and Access for Deaf-Blind Learners

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners I have related three counter-narratives that illustrate how class is an important factor in determining who has access to what technologies that are important for DeafBlind learners as a way of being. When factoring in the cost for equipment necessary to maintain the day-to-day activities of Deaf-Blind learners, the reality of the digital divide becomes apparent: James, a middle-class Deaf-Blind teenager enjoys an array of technological devices, having readily available access to the Internet in school, at home, and via mobile. His parents both hold advanced degrees and enjoy the luxuries of a combined six-figure income. They reside in an upwardly mobile suburb of a large metropolitan area in the south. As a child, James had sufficient residual vision, which allowed him to develop simultaneous oral/tactile communication skills and become socialized to develop the behavior that is expected of middle-class children. In addition to having four rotating tactile interpreters for his mainstreamed school program, James also has extensive training in the use of Braillenotes, ZoomText, and JAWS (Job Access With Speech). All of this comes at the total cost of nearly $7,500, absent operating costs. While Vocational Rehabilitation subsidizes much of the equipment specific to access for educational purposes, the bulk of software programs, personal devices, and the maintenance in operating such devices falls at the expense of James parents. To put this in perspective, the maintenance of constant Internet with sufficient broadband coupled with mobile devices that can support video content (LTE service), upgrading and expanding software for Braillenotes (outside of VRs spending limits) run nearly $3,500 per year. Without the middle-class socioeconomic status of James parents, computer and Internet access outside of his school district would have been quite limited.

14

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners In contrast Billy, a working-class Deaf-Blind teenager does not own any of the devices mentioned above. Billy is the only child of a single mother who works incessantly at various food service establishments, often overnight. They reside in a remote rural trailer park within the Deep South. Communication between mother and son is rudimentary onehanded tactile based on home signs- gestures that are often used for communication between a Deaf individual and her hearing family (Quinto-pozos, 2008). Billys behavior resembles that of other children residing within the trailer park, what the middle class might view as unruly, roughhousing and boisterous. Due to the remote location and poverty of the family, Billys education is a far cry from the caliber of education replete with appropriate accommodations and paraprofessional services as is that of James. Vocational Rehabilitation Services has declined to support Billy in providing the array of technologies necessary for the day-to-day functions and communication for a Deaf-Blind learner. For higher education and employment, James, Billy, and Fernando will be expected to have mastered the use of Braillenotes, Apex, ZoomText, JAWS, Sticky Keys, (Figures 1-5) and a whole host of other technological avenues that are rapidly opening in the midst of a communication revolution (Gabel & Mansfield, 2003). This is an important skill-set for Deaf-Blind individuals in both education and the transition to employment. The decision for eligibility and ineligibility to receive equipment funding from Vocational Rehabilitation is sometimes a conundrum. On the one hand, the system seems to applaud perceived ability for participation in the rehabilitation process but can effectively shut out eligible clients based on factors often outside of the client and familys control such as class and ethnicity rooted in the bias of the evaluating VR counselor (Cavenaugh, J Martin Giesen, & Steinman, 2006). Other factors can deem otherwise eligible clients as ineligible for actions

15

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners perpetuated by systematic demands of employment that are often at the mercy of individuals in working class families. For Billy, it is often difficult to make appointments due to the Monday-Friday 9am to 5pm nature of Vocational Rehabilitation, hours which often conflict with food service industry demands, on top of the ever-changing last minute nature of Billys mothers work schedule. These complications are further compounded by the mother not owning reliable transportation, having to travel approximately 100 miles round trip to the nearest VR office, to say nothing for the price of gas. Yet, these actions can be construed by VR counselors as failure to cooperate for not keeping appointments, and is viewed as not fully participating in the rehabilitation process (Wilson, Jackson, & Doughty, 1999). For Billy, the precise reason why he was denied eligibility for VR services is not explicitly explained. In my experience working with Deaf-Blind individuals who exhibit language delay, are classified as semilinguals as victims of discriminatory schooling, (Cummins, 2000 p. 100) the answer from above tends to be termed too handicapped to serve (Wilson, Jackson, & Doughty, 1999) Perhaps the most glaring example of all is the inability for VR to extend services to those who lack legal citizenship status in the United States without a working permit (http://www.rehab.cahwnet.gov/Public/FAQ.html#quest7). For Fernando, the system has stacked the odds against him. Obtaining a permanent work permit for immigrants desiring to enter the United States is a complex and confusing task. One only need to glance at the table of preferred workers (Figure 6) outlined by US Customs and Immigration to see that Fernando, by merely being a Deaf-Blind individual is not preferred as a worker in the United States. In fact, the table effectively shuts out individuals with disabilities from legally entering the workforce in the United States.

16

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners Here, I argue that class is the determining factor in the distribution of who gets what as it pertains to technology access for Deaf-Blind learners. If one shows promise in achievement, by conforming to the rules adopted by the VR system and has the means of doing so one shall receive X Y and Z. Billys language acquisition level and behavior unfortunately, within the mandates of VR allegedly cause him to be ineligible for services due to circumstances beyond his control, or being perceived as too difficult to rehabilitate. Billys mother cannot afford to purchase tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, which in addition, require even more money to operate on a monthly basis. When considering the counter-narratives between James, a middle-class Deaf-Blind teenager, Billy, a working-class Deaf-Blind teenager and Fernando, a working class immigrant and person of color all deserving of the same technologies- are forced into different sides of the digital divide. The digital divide in essence, makes access to technology and internet use out of reach for many working-class, Deaf-Blind individuals, and families with Deaf-Blind or children. In order to understand how different kinds of access to technology and internet use are affected by SES of Deaf-Blind children, it is necessary to step back and observe a systematic view of how computer and internet access is affected by class in both schools and the homes of Deaf-Blind learners. Physical access to Computer and Internet Access (C&I) Physical access to C&I alone is a major hurdle that prevents many lower income students from having readily available and convenient access to technology. While students in middle, and upper-middle class families typically attend high-resource schools which provide rich and varied C&I access in an educational environment (Aries & Seider, 2007), the majority of such students are likely to have a similar level of access to

17

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners technology at home, and quite likely to have ownership of personal devices that allow for C&I access (Lenhart, 2009 p.7). Families in lower socioeconomic households do not enjoy the same access to C&I and are less likely to have ownership of such devices that allow them access on par with their middle-class peers (Lenhart, 2009 p.7). Although internet access has grown rapidly in families where income is less than $15,000 per year in the last decade, children without internet access are likely to be at a disadvantage in American society relative to their peers and may be at immediate risk in terms of their educational progress as well as their future risk for potential job opportunities (Cleary, Pierce, & Trauth, 2006). Recall that James attended a high-resource school district which allows for the rich and varied experiences described by Aries & Seider (2007), while Billy and Fernando are located in school districts that are remote, rural, and considered low-resource schools. As the totality of C&I experiences in terms of physical access depends upon the amount of interaction one physically experiences, the availability of such physical access works in tandem with the home-school continuum. James, for example has physical access at both home and school virtually at his fingertips when he desires to act upon this access. Billy has limited physical access, only during ten months of the school year, Monday through Friday. Fernando, on the other hand has potential access to C&I use, but is barred by the obstacles of citizenship, legal maneuvers, and SES status, which prevents him from experiencing consistent and real physical access to C&I. Beyond physical access, the educational gains provided by C&I are not merely novel or a more updated form of the same rote schoolwork as some may believe. The bundle of benefits to be learned via technology include not only curriculum content, but a whole

18

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners range of skills that must be nurtured through the use of technology. This is necessary for students to develop a cognitive process that works in conjunction with C&I use which, in an assimilated fashion supports academic growth. Cleary, Pierce and Trauth (2006) have demonstrated that children who use computers in conjunction with curriculum objectives as a means of reinforcing learning outcomes demonstrate greater developmental gains as opposed to their peers who do hot have computer access in like classrooms.. Technology, C&I access, and computers play a necessary and integral role in the education of Deaf-Blind learners both inside and outside of the classroom. Earlier, I have demonstrated the technological needs for Deaf-Blind individuals in employment and higher education are manifold and expensive. Not only is the expense for such technological access dependent upon SES as a matter of continuous physical access For Deaf-Blind students, C&I is not only essential for instruction, but essential as a way of being Deaf-Blind. As we have seen with James, the correct SES allows for access, training, knowledge, and thereby extending the proverbial ladder to higher education and gainful employment. This is not the case for Billy and Fernando who, through no fault of their own are classified in a lower SES, which severely limits access to C&I. These inconsistent and intermittent encounters with technology are not merely options for avenues of learning, but a necessity in order to access the world as a Deaf-Blind individual and compete in the arenas of education and employment on par with their hearing-sighted and Deaf peers.

19

Availability of Support for C&I: Skills for Deaf-Blind Learners and the Digital Divide With the advent of 24/7 access to communication in an array of avenues and platforms, the choices for communication via C&I for Deaf-Blind children are more

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners important than ever before. It is expected by Deaf-Blind Specialists, Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors, and Early Intervention Specialists that Deaf-Blind learners with ASL as their language of choice will use Video Phone to connect and converse with hearing individuals who are not fluent in ASL. It is similarly expected that Deaf-Blind learners will understand and become fluent in a host of communication tools; email, instant messaging platforms, and video chat to name a few examples. In essence, Deaf Blind children are not only expected to become fluent in world-interconnectivity but must, as members of the Deaf community, have access to such technologies as a manner of being in todays society. (McKenzie & Davidson, 2007). Johnsons (2004) research that indicates not only does the information revolution dictate that a whole host of services such as healthcare consultations, Vocational Rehabilitation, Social Services, Counseling, job interviews, and even legal proceedings will become two dimensional, taking the place of human interaction (Johnson, 2004), the trend is beginning to spread. Utah and South Carolina have begun to use teleconferencing as a means to provide Vocational Rehabilitation Services, Outreach Services, and branching off into medical and counseling services emulating those already in place by hearing organizations (Johnson, 2004) The writer, having worked for the State of North Carolina in a counseling capacity also has experience with this trend. North Carolina, like Utah and South Carolina have unique widespread geographic conditions in which the majority of the population resides in rural areas. The trend in two-dimensional means of communication in North Carolina has extended to Deaf and Deaf-Blind individuals who have mobility issues, transportation issues, and visual loss, which hinder travel. Not only are a majority of critical life activities becoming two dimensional, this medium requires users to

20

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners manipulate and evolve American Sign Language to fit the demands of the twodimensionality inherent in signing on video. The necessary skill set for two-dimensional communication in ASL as Keating explains is: Some important skills for a virtual or technologically mediated environment include: manipulation of desktop real estate, manipulation of language features, manipulation of image transmission and body relations, creation of a radically different sign space, alteration of signing speed, increased repetition, codeswitching, and adjustment of deictic references (KEATING & MIRUS, 2003). It has been suggested that Deaf children must become fluent in C&I use in order to maintain viable employment prospects, receive an education that is parallel with that of their hearing peers, and in essence survive as a citizen of the future (Burgstahler, 2003). In light of SES status among Deaf children, this may not be a guaranteed reality for every student. One of the major determinants in Internet use continues to be family income as Internet use among school age children varies directly with income of the family (Cleary, Pierce, & Trauth, 2006). In Clearys findings, Internet use beginning with families having an income of less than $5,000 stands at 34%. Internet use increases incrementally in relation to family income showing that families having an income of $75,000 have 79.3% use among school age children. Social Consequences of C&I: Total Cost of Ownership; Free Does Not Mean Free As we have seen from Fernandos situation, merely having the equipment is not enough. There are a number of initiatives that purport to give Deaf/Deaf-Blind and Hard of Hearing individuals free equipment in order to defray the burden of cost, thereby expanding access to C&I. One of the most illustrious examples of this is the Sorenson Video Phone. One need only visit their website (http://www.sorenson.com) to see a prominent advertisement encouraging Deaf individuals to apply for a free Video Phone. While this is

21

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners true for the vast majority of VRS providers, I only use this company as an example. Although the device itself is free, it does not account for the total cost of ownership in the maintenance and use of this service. VP requires a dedicated Ethernet line in the most basic sense. While some platforms support VP usage through Wi-Fi and iDevices, this equipment (such as an iPhone 5) is actually an upgrade in services and therefore more costly, or carry two costs: Internet at home, and cellular service for such a device, which together, can be relatively expensive. Depending on geographic location, Internet service fees can vary wildly. For Internet users, additional expenses include computer hardware, software, and connectivity, subject to the whims contracted by a particular Internet Service Provider (ISP). These aspects of C&I access are what is referred to as the total cost of ownership (TCO) (Cleary, Pierce, & Trauth, 2006). As previously mentioned in the reframed definition of the digital divide, component (3) entails the availability of support for C&I. This type of support can manifest in many forms: Customer Support (which most likely requires the user to call via VP or email), Personnel support (availability of an IT person at school or within social networks), or simply peers with a shared body of expertise in TCO maintenance. Even then, having peers with a shared body of expertise implies membership to a certain class that is capable of buying into the C&I level necessary for Deaf individuals. There exist some federal initiatives that purport to defray the cost of Internet access to Deaf/Deaf-Blind and Hard of Hearing individuals. I mentioned this thought process when venting to my colleague on the drive home from Billys house. Although I could have easily referred Billy and his mother to any number of initiatives, I could not in good conscience do so knowing that free is a fallacy. One such example is the now defunct Project Endeavor,

22

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners which was a two-year program under CSD that is funded by the NTIA (National Telecommunications Information Administration) as part of the ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) (http://www.projectendeavor.org/AboutUs.aspx). The concept purported to provide discounted access for Deaf/Blind individuals at half the cost, in addition to various technological devices at a discounted cost. The caveat: in order to navigate the process of learning about the advantages of broadband access, smartphones, iDevices which are all nicely presented in an extensive video library replete with captions one must have high speed internet access in order to take advantage of this learning experience, effectively shutting out lower-class students and families. Furthermore, the TCO factor in discounted service is not made explicit to potential consumers, shrouded by the fact that the discount in broadband access is merely temporary as witnessed by the termination of the program. Another such program that promises to provide assistance in allocation and purchase of specialized (read: expensive) equipment for Deaf-Blind individuals is the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program, which is the brainchild of the Federal communications Commission. This is not a widely publicized program. Each state has a designated agency responsible for the oversight of this program. Whether state and nonprofit agencies have strong collaborations with schools is an area that deserves more query, for without this connection, a parent trying to procure viable C&I access for a DeafBlind child may never know of such programs. Even then, those parents of working-class families who may not have Internet access would most likely have difficulty locating an affiliated agency capable of providing assistance for access such as Fernando and Billy. Recall that Fernando could not even apply

23

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners to a local community college, while Billys mother did not have Internet access. Billy himself could not independently perform a search of this caliber at the time of this writing. To illustrate my point: In this instance, a cursory Internet search for the name of the program NDBEDP takes me to: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/national-deaf-blind-equipmentdistribution-program, which offers a one-paragraph overview and a phone number. It further states that if I want to find more about this program in my state, I need to click on a link that takes me to an external (different) website: http://www.icanconnect.org. This website has an ASL video which explains the concept of the program and what interested participants should do to apply. Next, I click on State Partners tab and scroll down to select my home state North Carolina. At this page, I am given another website to visit: http://www.ncdhhs.gov/dsdhh/, which is a State agency website and describes nothing immediately visible about the NDBEDP program. Alternatively, I am given a VP phone number, which ironically, requires Internet access. My point in writing these steps in great detail is to illustrate the Internet competency one must have in order to fully access this program. In the instance of a working-class family who may not have home-based access, the skill necessary to click within a maze of appropriate links, or lack the internet access to call the appropriate numbers, the process can be extremely daunting which again, shuts out those who truly need access from accessing the actual programs themselves. While a good number of products and services are free, or give the semblance of being free and accessible, it is generally not true. Despite efforts of the federal government most notably through the FCC, merely having the equipment is not enough. The total cost of

24

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners ownership and all that entails is still a major factor in catalyzing the digital divide between Deaf students of working and middle classes. Conclusion

25

The status quo of today and tomorrows information revolution essentially requires students and citizens alike to be fluent in technology and C&I use. The problem lies in the access and acquisition of these resources in order to have prime educational experiences and develop qualities that are most desirous by future employers and gatekeepers of higher education. This is especially true for Deaf-Blind learners such as James, Billy, and Fernando. I have demonstrated through the offering of three counter-narratives of Deaf-Blind learners across various SES how deeply divisive the digital divide is among this population of learners. Also examined were the various ways SES impacts the ability of Federal institutions to work in favor of or against Deaf-Blind learners based on perceptions that arise from class. Subsequently, the very contexts in which SES dictates geographic location, high/low resource schools and a consistency to C&I access further buttress the notion that class is a divisive and strong indicator of success for Deaf-Blind learners. Lastly, I have demonstrated how free is a fallacy that serves to benefit Deaf-Blind individuals like James, while actually shutting out Billy and Fernando the very individuals these initiatives were purportedly designed to help. The total cost of ownership as a manner of being a Deaf-Blind individual requires a certain class level in order to get ahead in todays ever-changing communication revolution.

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners

26

Figure 1. ZoomText Software tool for magnification, color reversing, and contrast. Cost: $898.00

Figure 2. Braillenotes Bluetooth-enabled refreshable braille, necessary for computer use. As the machine reads text code, it is translated in pop-up braille (see white holes in cell formation below), which refreshes line by line as text is scrolled through. Cost: $5,495.00

Figure 3. Focus40 Blue similar in concept to Braille notes, but contains 40 cells. (One braille character is represented in one cell. One cell contains permutations of six pegs. Imagine the format of number 6 on a die. This is one braille cell). The cost is the same as Braillenotes.

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners

27

Figure 4. Apex/Deaf-Blind communicator: This functions on a similar platform to figures 3&4, but also comes with a cell phone. This cell phone allows users to place SMS texts, use GPS for walking, hang out on Facebook, and perform many other smartphone functions. It is completely mobile. Cost: $8,465.00

Figure 5. Sticky Keys is a method of controlling the computer entirely sans mouse. Cost: Computer market value.

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners

28

Figure 6. JAWS (Job Access With Speech) Is a software program originally developed for the hearing blind. It works in conjunction with refreshable braille to transcribe text into audible English while simultaneously transcribing in braille. Cost: $1,095.00

Figure 7 Source: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a /?vgnextoid=cdfd2f8b69583210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=cdfd2f8b 69583210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners Preferences First Preference EB-1 General Description This preference is reserved for persons of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; outstanding professors or researchers; and multinational executives and managers. This preference is reserved for persons who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or for persons with exceptional ability in the arts, sciences, or business. This preference is reserved for professionals, skilled workers, and other workers. (See Third Preference EB-3 link on left for further definition of these job classifications.) This preference is reserved for special immigrants, which includes certain religious workers, employees of U.S. foreign service posts, retired employees of international organizations, alien minors who are wards of courts in the United States, and other classes of aliens. This preference is reserved for business investors who invest $1 million or $500,000 (if the investment is made in a targeted employment area) in a new commercial enterprise that employs at least 10 full-time U.S. workers. Labor Certification Required? No

29

Second Preference EB-2

Yes, unless applicant can obtain a national interest waiver (See the Labor Certification link to the right for more waiver information.) Yes

Third Preference EB-3

Fourth Preference EB-4

No

Fifth Preference EB-5

No

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners

30

References Aries, E., & Seider, M. (2007). The role of social class in the formation of identity: A study of public and elite private college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(2), 137-57. Burgstahler, S. (2003). The role of technology in preparing youth with disabilities for postsecondary education and employment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 7-19. Cavenaugh, B. S., J Martin Giesen, & Steinman, B. A. (2006). Contextual effects of race or ethnicity on acceptance for vocational rehabilitation of consumers who are legally blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100(7), 425-436. Chen, D. (2004). Young children who are deaf-blind: Implications for professionals in deaf and hard of hearing services. The Volta Review, 104(4), 273-284. Chen, D., & Haney, M. (1995). An early intervention model for infants who are deaf-blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 89(3), 213.

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners

Cleary, P. F., Pierce, G., & Trauth, E. M. (2006). Closing the digital divide: Understanding racial, ethnic, social class, gender and geographic disparities in internet use among school age children in the united states. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(4), 354-373. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10209-005-0001-0 Friedman, E. J. (2005). The reality of virtual reality: The internet and gender equality advocacy in latin america. Latin American Politics and Society, 47(3), 1-III. Gabel, J. T. A., & Mansfield, N. R. (2003). The information revolution and its impact on the employment relationship: An analysis of the cyberspace workplace. American Business Law Journal, 40(2), 301353. Halal, W. E. (1992). The information technology revolution. The Futurist, 26(4), 10. Johnson, L. (2004). Utah deaf videoconferencing model: Providing vocational services via technology. Journal of Rehabilitation, 70(4), 33-37. Keating, E., & Mirus G. (2003). American sign language in virtual space: Interactions between deaf users of computer-mediated video communication and the impact of technology on language practices. Language in Society, 32(5), 693-714. McKenzie, A. R., & Davidson, R. (2007). The emergent literacy of preschool students who are deafblind: A case study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 101(11), 720-725. Quinto-pozos, D. (2008). Sign language contact and interference: ASL and LSM. Language in Society, 37(2), 161-189. Valadez, J. R., & Duran, R. (2007). Redefining the digital divide: Beyond access to computers and the internet. The High School Journal, 90(3), 31-44.

31

Running Head: Digital Divide and Deaf-Blind Learners

Wilson, K. B., Jackson, R. L., II, & Doughty, J. D. (1999, Autumn 1999). What a difference a race makes: Reasons for ineligibility within the vocational rehabilitation system. American Rehabilitation, 25, 16-24.

32